After the first video on Cryptodata, Misterhelmet received from YouTube, at the request of the same Romanian company, a fine for copyright infringement with relative removal of the video. Misterhelmet appealed and demonstrated the legitimacy of its journalistic work. Sanction withdrawn and video readmitted.
MISTERHELMET SAYS NO TO INTIMIDATION!
We return after a few weeks to the CryptoDATA topic and the story of copyright infringement.
As you know, I am engaged in a battle against fakes, against scams, and I regularly report anomalous sponsors and unclear situations.
For many years, Misterhelmet has been carrying out analyses, lots of investigations and so far has always managed, thanks to the help of many readers, to come up with a lot of strange things.
One of these scenarios that did not sit well with me, or at least had an unclear situation, was the one of CryptoDATA, a sponsor that acquired a part of the RNF team.
Misterhelmet came out with a video with the title ‘Shocking Revelations’, in which it revealed the story of CryptoDATA, the past of Ovidiu Toma, its CEO, and a whole series of contents.
This video did not please CryptoDATA, which, however, was careful not to respond to the arguments.
et’s say CryptoDATA did not dare to answer a total of 3 times.
Initially they didn’t do it about my videos and articles because maybe some of the situations were really unclear.
What they did though was file a copyright infringement complaint despite the fact that the material I used was all in the public domain.
It’s an intimidating attitude because whoever receives a copyright infringement doesn’t mind to protest since there are usually legal implications and there is always fear of having to dabble in court.
In my case it wasn’t like that, I sent my counter-notification and in the meantime I posted another video in which I asked Ovidiu Toma, the people at CryptoDATA and other exponents around 40 questions that no one dared to ask.
At the same time my counter-notification was forwarded to the author, in this case, CryptoDATA, which had 10 working days to demonstrate that they had brought a legal action against me and to demonstrate that there is an actual copyright infringement.
On my side, I provided my arguments, but the first counter-notification was dismissed as CryptoDATA had asked YouTube for time and then asked me for an explanation.
After three weeks, YouTube, having received no explanation from CryptoDATA and having found Misterhelmet’s explanation satisfactory, decided to restore the video in compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Misterhelmet 2 Criptodata 0.
It is typical of more recent times to intimidate through legal action and warnings, as has already happened in other situations.
Misterhelmet has already been confronted with this type of situation several times, but, on the strength of his arguments, he has never stopped.
That’s the difference between fearful media in the service of the powerful and independent media.
You choose which one to support.